I agree with you. At the same time, it seems like an interesting discussion to be had, but it started the wrong way. I have to apply it to songwriting because

I agree with you. At the same time, it seems like an interesting discussion to be had, but it started the wrong way. I have to apply it to songwriting because that's an area I have more experience. Most (if not all) of the songwriters I've ever admired tended to come from the same place (paraphrasing here): "the song chose me, I didn't choose the song—it came on the wind/from intuition/from somewhere else/I only channeled it". Usually pointing to some sensitivity to the unconscious and imagination, collective unconscious, intuition, or even to the spiritual. The best songs (my opinion, don't shoot) tend to come from songwriters who make those kinds of claims about their creative process. There's definitely nothing "bubbly" about how some of those songwriters got started. Many of them came from no means and even less education. Ignoring automatic writing and similar techniques, more authors seem to assert more agency than songwriters on the same process. It's probably true in most cases. Rushdie almost sounds more like a songwriter here, except that he hangs it all on something so concrete as a single philosophy. I kind of like his statement, but I don't think it's a complete thought. I don't know if that's due to Garner's interpretations or if it's really what Rushdie meant in total. Then again, I've held similar opinions about classrooms when it comes to music; that learning to play music at the Royal Conservatory or at Berklee will provide you with all kinds of tools and industry knowledge, but don't really teach intuition. Can they? How many John Prine's has Berklee turned out? Maybe he should have said something even more concrete: don't just end your education in the classroom, get out there and feel something and then put it all together. It's not enough to match the form, after all.